I understand the snark, & context, of the Onion piece. The Post stuck with the story about the Saudi student being a suspect, and that there were 12 dead, until the bitter end. The burned Saudi student in the hospital was later termed a "witness" rather than a "suspect." The death toll remains at 3.

All I cared about in the moment was giving our readers a vague, erroneous conception of what was happening on the ground while also beating our competitors to the punch with a more sensationalistic story.

You mean that LA Times headline last night, telling me that all of America now has a shattered sense of security, even though we have no idea who made and planted these bombs for what reason, and most of us live thousands of miles away from there, was just sensationalism?

I was recounting to some whippersnappers last night about how Walter Cronkite and CBS would have handled this story if it had happened in 1970 or so:

"Today in Boston, two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring dozens. [film rolls from helicopter flyover] A third bomb was found and safely detonated by explosives experts. There are currently no suspects and no group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. Authorities from several local, state, and federal agencies are investigating.

Lenny_da_Hog:I was recounting to some whippersnappers last night about how Walter Cronkite and CBS would have handled this story if it had happened in 1970 or so:

"Today in Boston, two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring dozens. [film rolls from helicopter flyover] A third bomb was found and safely detonated by explosives experts. There are currently no suspects and no group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. Authorities from several local, state, and federal agencies are investigating.

"In Phnom Penh today....."

Were there a lot of bombs in Boston back then? I wasn't around until the mid-80s.

I have to agree. The nation is gripped by tragedy and it seems disrespectful to the dead and wounded when pundits demand factual accuracy in reporting. Its enough to know something big is happening and someone has been apprehended. Facts can wait until emotion dies down.

ransack.:Lenny_da_Hog: I was recounting to some whippersnappers last night about how Walter Cronkite and CBS would have handled this story if it had happened in 1970 or so:

"Today in Boston, two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring dozens. [film rolls from helicopter flyover] A third bomb was found and safely detonated by explosives experts. There are currently no suspects and no group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. Authorities from several local, state, and federal agencies are investigating.

"In Phnom Penh today....."

Were there a lot of bombs in Boston back then? I wasn't around until the mid-80s.

katerbug72:I hate The Onion. If I want to read fake news, I'll read the NY Post or Fox News.

I'll give Fox News this. They weren't anywhere near as bad as CNN in jumping the gun on bad reports yesterday. They suck on opinion most of the time but when it comes down to actual hard news that's breaking they usually seem to get it right the first time. The problem is that on slow news days they mask opinion as news a lot of the time and there are plenty of people out there that can't seem to make the distinction. They usually try and make it very clear in situations like yesterday on which items are unconfirmed reports and what is solid and verified information.

ransack.:Lenny_da_Hog: I was recounting to some whippersnappers last night about how Walter Cronkite and CBS would have handled this story if it had happened in 1970 or so:

"Today in Boston, two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring dozens. [film rolls from helicopter flyover] A third bomb was found and safely detonated by explosives experts. There are currently no suspects and no group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. Authorities from several local, state, and federal agencies are investigating.

"In Phnom Penh today....."

Were there a lot of bombs in Boston back then? I wasn't around until the mid-80s.

No. News outlets back then just didn't insist on treating the news, and especially tragedies, as entertainment.

Mattyb710:No. News outlets back then just didn't insist on treating the news, and especially tragedies, as entertainment.

That's because back then there were no 24 hour news networks with a lot of empty airtime to fill. They had 1/2 hour to tell the stories of the day and they didn't analyze it. If you wanted analysis you either waited for Sunday morning (or evening if 60 Minutes was doing something on it) or you read the newspaper the next day.

Radioactive Ass:Mattyb710: No. News outlets back then just didn't insist on treating the news, and especially tragedies, as entertainment.

That's because back then there were no 24 hour news networks with a lot of empty airtime to fill. They had 1/2 hour to tell the stories of the day and they didn't analyze it. If you wanted analysis you either waited for Sunday morning (or evening if 60 Minutes was doing something on it) or you read the newspaper the next day.

Also, there were three major news networks, and two major news wire services. If one became sensationalistic, their standards would be criticized loudly, and it stood out and they'd lose precious ratings. Now, with dozens of TV news sources and hundreds of web-based news sources, the focus is on keeping people engaged by turning everything into a drama, and there's nobody loud enough to criticize anymore.

Radioactive Ass:katerbug72: I hate The Onion. If I want to read fake news, I'll read the NY Post or Fox News.

I'll give Fox News this. They weren't anywhere near as bad as CNN in jumping the gun on bad reports yesterday. They suck on opinion most of the time but when it comes down to actual hard news that's breaking they usually seem to get it right the first time. The problem is that on slow news days they mask opinion as news a lot of the time and there are plenty of people out there that can't seem to make the distinction. They usually try and make it very clear in situations like yesterday on which items are unconfirmed reports and what is solid and verified information.

I started out watching Fox News yesterday and had to switch to ABC because I couldn't stand all the horrible speculation. The woman was just talking to fill time or something and it was the most annoying thing. My mother in law talks like that. Narrates life, speculates on things she knows nothing about. It was like that, speculation was rampant and actual news facts were nil. Mind you, it was pretty early but it was terrible. I can't stand watching Fox News, the TV just happened to be on Fox when I turned it on so I left it.

ransack.:Lenny_da_Hog: I was recounting to some whippersnappers last night about how Walter Cronkite and CBS would have handled this story if it had happened in 1970 or so:

"Today in Boston, two bombs exploded at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing 3 and injuring dozens. [film rolls from helicopter flyover] A third bomb was found and safely detonated by explosives experts. There are currently no suspects and no group has claimed responsibility for the bombings. Authorities from several local, state, and federal agencies are investigating.

"In Phnom Penh today....."

Were there a lot of bombs in Boston back then? I wasn't around until the mid-80s.

No, but as an eight-year-old I learned "body count" and "napalm" and "grenade" and "Khmer Rouge" and watched the horrid chaotic evacuation of Da Nang right on the teevee.